Comments on: Judge Nelson could be trying to soften up the league for settlement talkshttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/
ProFootballTalk on NBCSports.comMon, 16 Oct 2017 22:17:54 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: thelockoutbeardhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1021757
Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:30:34 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1021757The Lockout Continues grows on and so does the length of my Lockout Beard! I’m not shaving until they start playing again.. You can follow me on twitter to see the progression of my beard and the lockout. Follow me @thelockoutbeard

-TheLockoutBeard-

]]>By: edgerinnhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1021699
Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:42:51 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1021699@znorseman
No, my logic was that when one firm controls a supply or service to the point that they aren’t susceptible to market pressures of competition that they are a monopoly, and that the existence of the AFL and UFL doesn’t represent competition to the NFL in that way. The only competition the NFL faces is from the NCAA, and that doesn’t really count for several reasons in that

1. the NCAA is amateur

2. The NCAA and NFL generally act cooperatively rather than competitively in that they don’t compete for players and they don’t run games opposing one another.

Is the combined revenue of the AFL and UFL even 1% of the NFL?

]]>By: sandyf79705http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1021569
Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:57:50 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1021569To many here think they know what is what and the reality is one thing and one thing only. It is who gets the upper hand in what will be a new CBA.

In the failed strike of 1987, the players union decertified and six (6) years later the NFL and players “association” negotiated a new CBA. Part of the bargaining was that the NFL insisted that the association once again be a union in order for the NFL to keep their anti-trust exemption. (this is all filed in the legal brief). Also, the NFL at the time agreed that the union could decertify if needed and hope was that they wouldn’t ever need that ploy.

The reason the NFL filed a complaint with the NRLB about the decertification being a sham was not because they thought the NRLB would rule for them because it is an almost certainity that they will not, it is because the NRLB will take months if not years to rule thereby forcing the players to either negotiate quickly or risk losing paychecks in September similar to the players coming back off of the strike because they couldn’t stand to lose a paycheck. It is a good ploy by the NFL.

Also for those to young to remember or just forgetful, when Upshaw negotiated the last CBA and the owners signed off on it (30-2), it was hailed by the media and the owners as a win for the NFL and a loss for the players. Upshaw was accused in the media and by players as selling out the union. A “bad deal” so to speak, my how things have changed.

The owners decided two years ago to end the CBA because it wasn’t fair to them, change of heart from the initial thoughts and embarked on a plan for the lockout. This isn’t for debate and they actually said it and was actually reported two years ago. So why did they wait until 30 minutes before the union decertified to present the first real stab at an agreement. Because it was there plan. They knew the union would decertify and file a lawsuit. They also have a game plan worked out if the judge lifts the lockout. They have had a plan all along. Not to believe that would be pretty stupid by all of us.

It is not to say the union doesn’t have a game plan also. They do. But it is as in a football game, both teams go in with a game plan and if both game plans are good it probably will be a close finish but like in any game plan if the fumbles and turnovers go mainly to one side, it probably will not be close. Safe to say that both sides in this fight are waiting for that turnover to slant the game in their favor.

The media will hype this anyway they can. The only real losers are the fans who are waiting for the NFL year to begin. Most of us have pick a side, either owners or players, but the fact is there will at some point be a new CBA and both sides will do alright but well, it is we fans that ultimately lose.

]]>By: zn0rsemanhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1021432
Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:22:39 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1021432@edgerinn
By your logic, any business that puts forth a superior product to their competition is a monopoly?
]]>By: edgerinnhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1021332
Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:26:44 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1021332I’m no lawyer, but from a legal standpoint I don’t think the existence of the AFL and UFL necessarily means the NFL isn’t a monopoly. Do either of those entities compete with the NFL in any way that does not allow them to operate as a monopoly? Does their existence impact in any way the contracts they offer their players, carriers, advertisers, and so on?

I see no evidence that networks feel the UFL is a possible substitute for the NFL and that they can therefore get NFL games for less with the leverage that they can run UFL games if the NFL doesn’t take what they are offering. I think the existence of the AFL and the fact that players can play there has zero impact when players negotiate their NFL contracts, its 100% about what other NFL teams will give them.

So, if I had to lay money on whether the NFL would be considered a monopoly by anti-trust law, I’d bet the house that it was. It certainly operates as one by any useful real world criteria. While other pro football leagues exist, they don’t compete with the NFL.

The NFL is not “a monopoly that is allowed to exist under an exemption to the the anti-trust laws.” The NFL, in fact, has no such blanket exemption. See Radovich v. NFL. Major League Baseball does. See Toolson v. New York Yankees.

That said, a horizontal agreement among owners not to employ a non-unionized set of players may well violate the Sherman Act. Whether an injunction is appropriate, as opposed to damages, is now before Judge Nelson.

By locking out the players they are preventing the players from exercising their chosen livelihood

The bargaining power that a Brady, Manning, Brees etc would have if the teams actually competed with one another for their services is substantial. In a purely free marketplace would it be unrealistic to think Manning could be earning $35M per year?

The results of this lawsuit will not destroy football, or even make it less competitive.

————————-

Allow me to retort to these specific statements…

1: The NFL is not a monopoly. There are other leagues out there including the UFL and AFL.

2: The players in a lockout can play wherever they want. The CFL, AFL and UFL would love to hire them.

3: In a friend free market system the NFL would be destroyed. The system they have now generated competition and caused a semi-level playing field for teams, which keeps the game interesting for a much larger audience. That audience draws massive profits, which is what allows owners to afford multi-million dollar salaries. In the unique case of the NFL, a truly free market system eliminates that level playing field and the profits that come with it. Lack of profits means lower payrolls.

4: The elimination of the level playing field, which this lawsuit seeks to accomplish, will destroy the NFL. Two or three teams will dominate the rest and the fans will stop watching…

Which might be a good thing since the AFL is more fun to watch anyway, and they don’t rig games for Pittsburgh.

]]>By: schemefactoryhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1021144
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 23:45:31 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1021144brambo67: did you just say ‘whilst’?
]]>By: fatelvis77http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1021048
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:36:32 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1021048Good grief, Charlie Batch! Can’t believe the vitriol and the lack of understanding of the applicable law here. The NFL owners are a monopoly and have monopoly power. If they abuse that monopoly power, or restrain free trade in any significant way, they can be enjoined from doing what they are doing and held for triple damages plus attorneys fees. By locking out the players they are preventing the players from exercising their chosen livelihood and earning the amounts of money they would be able to earn if there were no monopoly and the teams actually bid against each other for the services of, not only the best players, but the fill-ins and role players that are necessary for a successful team.

On the other hand, if the NFLPA is the sole bargaining agent for the players, and the players are all (and must be) members of that union, then antitrust doesn’t apply and the owners can lock out the players if the players refuse to bargain in good faith.

There is ample precedent for the decertification of a union. There are precedents for finding that such a decertification was a sham. However, the bargaining power that a Brady, Manning, Brees etc would have if the teams actually competed with one another for their services is substantial. In a purely free marketplace would it be unrealistic to think Manning could be earning $35M per year?

The stakes are huge and the owners have far more to lose in litigation than the players. In a purely free market system many players would be able to command far more than they make now, but most would not. The owners would still have to have budgets for payroll. And there is certainly no guarantee that the teams with the highest payrolls would win. As now, the teams with the best management/coaching would win.

The results of this lawsuit will not destroy football, or even make it less competitive. And for those of you who think the U.S. Supreme Court will ever even hear this case, let alone bail out the owners, welcome to fantasy island. This case will be settled, either before or after the judge’s ruling, but relatively soon. We’re not missing football.

]]>By: bigsuedehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1021044
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:34:44 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1021044no manderson- an impass only happens in a labor dispute between a employer and a UNION. The NFLPA is no longer a union- therefore impasses are impossible to argue.

If the injunction is lifted, then the NFL can implement whatever rules they want. The NFL could take out all salary caps, let all unsigned players become free agents and hold no teams to restrictions and pass muster under a anti-trust lawsuit. The problem is that by doing so- the owners would lose much more money in the long run, than had they just continued with the old collective bargaining deal.

If the injunction is lifted- the NFL will be in much worse shape than they were during the last three years, that is for sure.

So if they judge does lift the lockout can’t the NFL then declare an impass and impliment their last offer as the rules for the coming year?

_______________________________________________

From everything we’ve heard, we’d start 2011 under the rules enforced in 2010 – which the players would then sue for damages against, stating that they were stopped from having “normal” free agency – and that is a lawsuit they would win.

If Judge Nelson stops the lock-out, the owners WILL pay damages one way or another!

In other words, annother biased judge has made up her mind for 2 weeks before actually hearing the case, and is covering for herself. Luckily there’s an appeals process. Hopefully the next judge will do it right.

_________________________________________

Whilst I think the players are being unreasonable and that their case would ultimately bring about the downfall of the NFL, I think that if Judge Nelson DID send them to arbitration it would be a good thing.

IMHO the de-facto NFLPA never negotiated in good faith.

IMHO the fact that a number of NFL teams are willing to show their books points out the reality of the case.

Yes, some clubs (Bengals, Buccs, Cards – cough, cough) do pay the owners and owners families large sums of money and the NFLPA* want to make “political” capital out of this. At the same time though, so long as those amounts haven’t increased drastically, the proof of what the owners are saying is true.

The cynical, nasty part of me would like the players court-case to be taken to it’s fullest. That way we’d all know that Smith, Kessler and Brady et al. only had the few in mind. Under pure anti-trust legislation 95% of all NFL players would be worse off. The Brady, Manning and Brees of the NFL might earn $40m a year, but the gunner on ST, the long-snapper and nickel-back or slot receiver would earn a fraction of what they currently do. Pure financial wisdom states that whatever extra money you give to a Brady or Manning must come from elsewhere.

And the nasty, cynical side of me would like to see these a-hole’s legacy remembered as bringing about the downfall of the NFL.

So if they judge does lift the lockout can’t the NFL then declare an impass and impliment their last offer as the rules for the coming year?
________________________________

As I understand it, the owners cannot claim an impasse because they are not in negotiations with a union (since the players are no longer represented by a union).

If the decertification is voided, then the NFLPA will simply return to negotiations. Then, they will look forward to Judge Doty’s decision on the damages owed by the owners for failing to maximize TV revenues under the prior labor agreement.

]]>By: armchairgm9http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1021018
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:15:23 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1021018Are we forgetting that it was the owners who made the last (and pretty decent) offer? And that it was the players who said no thanks, decertified, and walked away from mediation?

So why soften the owners up? Only thing to soften them up on is opening their books and it doesn’t sound like that’s where she’s leaning.

Seems to me that she should be softening up the NFLPA* to get them back to the table and give an honest effort to mediate.

]]>By: airraid77http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1021001
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:04:39 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1021001bigsuede,
the way I now understand…an injunction is another roadblock to a season.
even if the judge lifts the lockout their are no rules for the league to run…………..
what the he ll do i know though.
]]>By: bobwschttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1021000
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:00:25 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1021000Judge Smails would have this worked out by now. after all, he “sent boys younger than you to the gas chamber. didn’t want to do it…felt he……owed it to them.” that’s the kind of Judge who takes care of biz.
]]>By: 505phillyguyhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1020997
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:59:51 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1020997The league would be wise to get back to the bargaining table as soon as possible. If (and when) they get a ruling against them, they will essentially have no leverage to negotiate against them.

All of those who are consistently siding with the owners on these comments seem to show a complete lack of understanding of the whole situation. The players did not walk away from the negotiating table because they wanted to litigate…they did so because they were forced to by the league’s decision (that they made 2 years ago) to opt out of the CBA and impose a lockout.

Here is a summary of what has happened since then so you might gain a clearer understanding of the situationL

(1) The 32 teams that comprise the NFL are a monopoly that is allowed to exist under an exemption to the anti-trust laws. As such, special laws apply to their conduct with their labor force. So quit saying “well if I asked for more money my boss would fire my ass” because your situation has ABSOLUTELY no application to the situation at hand.

(2) As a monopoly, the 32 teams are now locking out all of the individual players of the NFL who are no longer a union because they decertified.

(3) While a lockout may have been legal against a union, it is not legal against the class of individual players. Essentially, it is illegal for a monopoly to deny workers (who have no other option for employment due to the monopoly) an opportunity to work.

(4) The decertification is not a sham because it was specifically provided for in the CBA and the league waived its right to assert that argument in defense of the lockout.

(5) In light of the preceeding, it is inevitable that an injunction against the lockout will be granted and the league will be forced to operate under the rules of the existing CBA until a new CBA can be agreed upon.

(6) The representatives for the class of players (no longer a union) can negotiate a settlement (CBA) with the league on behalf of the players.

]]>By: ronithan23http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1020995
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:59:38 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1020995ballergac says:
Apr 6, 2011 4:43 PM
my question is if it does go back to mediation…. court ordered… how in the world does the nfl have any leverage? its been pretty much laid out by the judge. hey the players have a good case… so the players knowing that will just say hey take this offer in mediation OR we will go back to court where u will LOSE.. thats unfair in my opinion…
———-
Rationally, it does the owners a favor if the Judge thinks they have a really weak case. It’s telling them that if they go to court, they’re going to lose, so get any deal that you can in negotiation because its the best you’re going to get, even if that’s only getting 5 cents on the dollar.
]]>By: manderson367http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1020990
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:56:50 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1020990So if they judge does lift the lockout can’t the NFL then declare an impass and impliment their last offer as the rules for the coming year?
]]>By: ronithan23http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1020988
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:55:53 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1020988nashmax says:
Apr 6, 2011 4:24 PM
Wouldn’t mediation with an empowered mediator actually be (binding) arbitration?

You’re the lawyer, not me, so help us out here.
—————-
It would only be binding arbitration if the third party could enforce a deal. The empowered mediator could only report back to the Judge that one party was acting in bad faith and that party could be fined, sanctioned etc. It would have no direct bearing on the creation of a deal between the two primary parties.

]]>By: bigsuedehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1020984
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:49:57 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1020984airrad- there is very little chance of a ruling of lifting an injunction would be overturned by the 8th circuit. The appeals court would be looking not be able to evauluate the trial on its merits but whether Nelson overstepped discretion.

The biggest point of contention would be whether the case was tried in the correct jurisdiction- which was why most of the questions asked today was about jurisdiction.

]]>By: ballergachttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1020971
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:43:20 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1020971my question is if it does go back to mediation…. court ordered… how in the world does the nfl have any leverage? its been pretty much laid out by the judge. hey the players have a good case… so the players knowing that will just say hey take this offer in mediation OR we will go back to court where u will LOSE.. thats unfair in my opinion…
]]>By: jcaro5566http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1020969
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:42:49 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1020969If I were the owners I would threaten to cut ticket prices across the board to the point where the revenue percentages the players want would result in much less than the dollar figures the owners are offering today. This way the players would have two options. Insist on their percentage of 50% of the revenues which would result in lower overall revenues and reduced income, or take the owners offer and ultimately make more money.

With the players being stupid and arrogant enough to insist on taking the higher percentage of the revenues, at least we the fans would win as a result of getting lower ticket prices.

The judge in this case is an Obama appointee and thus is nothing more than a union lapdog. As a result she’ll pretend that the decertification of the union wasn’t a complete sham (which it obviously was) and try to put the NFL in as bad of a legal position as possible so the the union will gain leverage at bargaining table. Which has been the union plan all along.

This action by the judge, much like the actions of the judge in the union case in Wisconsin, will be contrary to the actual law and proves once again that many judges in this country are becoming increasingly partisan and uninterested in justice or the rule of law, unless it coincides with their personal political beliefs and affiliations.

Judges need to be accountable for these rulings… otherwise the ‘legal system’ will continue to be joke that it is.

]]>By: johnnyoclockhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1020958
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:39:29 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1020958In other words, annother biased judge has made up her mind for 2 weeks before actually hearing the case, and is covering for herself. Luckily there’s an appeals process. Hopefully the next judge will do it right.
]]>By: BleedingSilverAndBlackhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1020930
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:29:57 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1020930Wasn’t Judge Nelson in “The Breakfast Club”?
]]>By: footballiskinghttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/06/judge-nelson-could-be-trying-to-soften-up-the-league-for-settlement-talks/#comment-1020926
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:28:53 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=121815#comment-1020926Another victory for the players (yes I know all of the owners interns that have taken over the comment pages will attack me with thumbs down)
]]>